PayPal

Monday, November 28, 2016

There is only one black on the 12-man jury trying the Michael Slager-Walter Scott murder case, and yet black judge Clifton Newman appointed him jury foreman. And while Michael Slager’s defense team built their defense around showing, through expert witnesses, that:

1. Scott had cocaine in his system;
2. That cocaine can make one aggressive, and that that contributed to Scott’s repeated assaults of Officer Michael Slager;
3. That although Scott earned $50,000 per year from his job, he was not making any child support payments, thereby implying that Scott, an apparent lifelong cokehead, who was bounced out of the Coast Guard for it, was blowing all his money on blow; and
4. That Officer Slager had made statements immediately after shooting Scott to his supervisor that would aid in his defense, in helping jurors to understand his state of mind at the time…. [Meanwhile, Judge Newman had previously permitted other officers to testify for the prosecution about what Slager had said at the time.]

A doctor was not allowed to explain how Walter Scott’s cocaine use might have thrust him into a “fight or flight” situation, a possible alternative reason for why Scott ran from a traffic stop and resisted arrest. Prosecutors have said Scott was simply scared of going to jail.

Defense attorneys also could not ask the officer’s former supervisor what Slager said that day about a struggle with Scott and his ensuing decision to open fire.

Lead attorney Andy Savage argued that other officers had already testified for the prosecution about Slager's accounts. At one point, he turned to prosecutors, exasperated over their reasons for blocking the supervisor’s testimony.

“Is it too much trouble to ask what the problem is?” he asked while jurors were not in the courtroom. “I don’t have ESP.”

Three of five defense witnesses who took the stand Tuesday were not permitted to give certain testimony. Only one expert, who talked about the yellow paint on Scott’s cellphone and Slager’s Taser, went unchallenged altogether.

Twelve defense witnesses in all, including Police Chief Eddie Driggers, have testified over four days, but objections and the resulting orders from Circuit Judge Clifton Newman have scuttled elements that the defense saw as crucial. Slager's family members often watched and nodded [unless Slager's family members want him to go to prison, that should be "shook"] their heads at the rulings. The trend is expected to continue as prosecutors plan challenges of future witnesses.

When Newman excluded Slager’s statements to a supervisor, Savage twice asked the judge to reconsider. Newman rejected the lawyers' arguments and, a few times, refused to listen altogether.

“It’s just not admissible according to the law … and my view,” Newman said. “The rules as well.”

Much of the disputed testimony has centered on Scott’s character and others' opinions of Slager's handling of the episode that led to Scott's death. Earlier this week, prosecutors successfully objected to a witness who planned to testify that Scott had been fired from a job over a positive cocaine test. The defense also wanted to delve into Scott’s failure to pay child support while earning a $50,000 salary at the job.

“All (the defense) wants to do is smear Mr. Scott’s character,” Chief Deputy Solicitor Bruce Durant said at one point.

Slager's attorneys have said that Scott's actions and the policeman’s own predicament on April 4, 2015, forced him to open fire in self-defense even as Scott ran away. But they have struggled to reconcile that case with court rules that limit certain evidence and the judge’s interpretation of the standards.

The stakes are high. If he’s convicted of murder, Slager faces between 30 years and life in prison. The prosecution, meanwhile, has pushed back against the defense’s approach in a case that comes amid nationwide criticism of police uses of force against black people.

Officer ‘in shock’?

Slager pulled over Scott's car for a broken brake light.

The stop seemed normal. And Sgt. Ronald Webb, Slager’s supervisor who wasn’t on duty that day, said he had never heard any complaints of racial profiling against the officer. Race has been rarely mentioned during the trial.

“He was a very good officer,” Webb told the jurors.

But Scott soon ran, and the policeman chased him. Slager said Scott grabbed his Taser in the struggle that followed and turned it against him.

Dr. Thomas Owens, a medical examiner from Charlotte hired by the defense, said minor wounds on Scott's hands, arms and head indicated he had been in a struggle. But prosecutors objected to Owens discussing “excited delirium” in which users of drugs like cocaine can be thrust into aggressive behavior.

The defense had envisioned the testimony, coupled with toxicology results showing cocaine in Scott's body, as “actual evidence” of a possible reason for his resistance, attorney Donald McCune said. The prosecution had already speculated that Scott ran because of a child support arrest warrant, McCune argued, but the judge wouldn't allow the defense theory, dubbing it speculation.

Still, jurors learned that cocaine users tend to have a higher threshold for pain and can experience “euphoric excitement."

When Slager and Scott got back to their feet during the encounter, Scott started running again, a video filmed by an eyewitness showed.

To further show what happened before the shooting, along with Slager's rationale for resorting to lethal force, his defense team enlisted testimony from experts and the officers who once worked with him.

Webb said he went to the scene, where Slager demonstrated how Scott was alleged to have grabbed the officer’s Taser. But prosecutors argued that such testimony would be “self-serving” for a defendant like Slager, who has not testified himself. The judge agreed, adding that prosecution testimony from other officers had been corroborated by multiple policemen. Webb had talked to Slager one on one.

Instead, the questioning shifted to after the shooting. Webb was asked to describe the lawman’s demeanor, to say whether Slager was in shock.

“It’s like talking to someone who is acting like they’re … acknowledging you, but they’re not paying attention,” Webb said. “More like they’re in deep thought.”

The defense team has stressed that Scott’s death arose from Slager’s job and that North Charleston Police Department polices had played into the officer’s dilemma that day.

Slager had been encouraged to make daily stops, he had little immediate backup to help him, and he went through limited training that exposed him to stressful situations when deciding whether to use force.

The officer suffered from those practices, the defense has said.

Video: Trace evidence expert says paint collected from Taser and phone from road at shooting site

To make one point, Savage handed the police chief a sheet that broke down how much money North Charleston brought in through the tickets that Slager issued over his career. The attorney offered it as an indication that officers' statistics were being watched.

“I have never seen this before,” Driggers said of the document.

Slager also had been left “alone by himself in a high-crime neighborhood,” Savage said. Four of the seven officers on the team were absent that day. With his partner busy on another call, Slager was patrolling the troublesome Charleston Farms community.

The judge had allowed Driggers’ testimony about policies despite the prosecution's stance that they were irrelevant to the case.

“The defense has a right to put on a defense according to the defense’s theory,” Newman said. He also issued caution, saying, “The department is not on trial, but Mr. Slager is.

"The jury has to determine this case."

But one point that the defense sees as important was conveyed Tuesday: that Slager had followed the rules before the shooting.

To Driggers, Slager's 14 uses of a Taser over his career "seemed high," the chief said. But his use of it against Scott last year was in line with policy.

Slager often leaned on the stun gun to bring down suspects, former New York City police official and Pace University criminal justice professor Darrin Porcher added in expert testimony for the defense. But Porcher said that Slager's past uses of a Taser seemed sound and that the officer had been right to use it against Scott, a suspect who had not complied with any commands to stop and had not been subdued with any other techniques.

But Porcher was asked only once about the shooting itself, the reason Slager wound up in jail.

“Even after the first shot," Savage said, "was there any indication of compliance?"

A paint analyst, a doctor with insight on cocaine use and Michael Slager's former supervisor testify Tuesday in his murder trial.
Key developments

• Trace forensic expert William Schneck of Spokane, Wash., said the yellow paint found on Walter Scott’s cellphone and Michael Slager’s Taser was likely from the yellow road where the shooting occurred. Both items were likely damaged at the same time.

• Dr. Thomas Owens, a medical examiner from Charlotte hired by the defense, testified that scrapes, bruises and cuts on Scott’s hands, arms and head were consistent with Scott having been in a struggle.

• A judge would not allow Owens’ testimony on “excited delirium” in which drug users can be thrust into aggressive “fight or flight” behavior. The defense sought to offer it as an alternative to the prosecution’s theory about why Scott ran.

• Sgt. Ronald Webb, the supervisor of Slager’s patrol squad, was more hesitant to answer defense questions than he had been in a pretrial hearing, often saying he “wasn’t working that day.” Webb eventually went to the scene and talked with Slager, but he wasn’t allowed to testify about what the officer said. Prosecutors successfully argued that it was hearsay. The judge added that there was not enough information to corroborate the trustworthiness of Webb’s testimony. Defense lawyer Andy Savage, meanwhile, said it should be allowed because similar testimony about officers’ accounts was permitted and, “This is a search for the truth.”

• North Charleston Police Chief Eddie Driggers testified that Slager was not known to have ever violated department policies before the shooting and appeared to have followed the rules during the confrontation with Scott before the gunfire. He said Slager’s 14 past Taser uses, though, “sounds high to me.”

• Pace University criminal justice professor Darrin Porcher, a retired police misconduct investigator in New York City, testified that Slager’s use of a Taser before the shooting was proper. “Officer Slager was by himself. He’s chasing one suspect, and there’s another person in the auto,” Porcher said of Slager’s situation. The witness was asked only one question about the shooting that followed. He agreed that Scott had not complied with any of Slager’s commands, even after the first shot.
________________________________________
More informationWATCH: North Charleston police officers testify in Michael Slager's defense
Watch the live stream of the murder trial of ex-North Charleston officer Michael Slager in the shooting death of Walter Scott and follow along with our live blog here.

Yesterday, there was sweet justice in Indianapolis, as black, 15-year-old armed robber, Roshun Johnson, used a computer app to lure a victim to a home in an apparently predominantly white neighborhood, and commenced to rob the man, who then turned the tables on the young thug, and shot him dead. And yet, at least three operatives at WRTV6/The Indy Channel are depicting the crime victim as a murderer, and the perp as a victim.

“Reporter” Liz Adeola and “digital producer” Victoria T. Davis @Victoria08Davis, both black, and a white female “reporter,” whose identity I have been unable to determine, all used language that reversed the roles of criminal perp and victim.

Liz Adeola, in her video, spoke of “the man admitting that he shot the teen” to police, emphasizing “admitting,” as if he were confessing to a crime.

Adeola also asserted “[police] said the man was lured here by a phone app.”

Phone apps don’t lure anyone. A person, presumably Roshun Johnson, lured the vic to the home, using the app.

[In what follows, all emphases by me.]

A second “reporter,” the white woman, asserted, “Police say it all started with a fight between Roshun and the eventual shooter.”

When did an armed robbery become “a fight”?

Adeola: “Police say it all started with a fight between Roshun and the eventual shooter. Who police say was lured here by a phone app. Roshun pulled out a gun, but the suspect shot first.”

“Shooter” and “suspect” are euphemisms for perp. But Roshun Johnson was the perp.

“Detectives said five to six teens were having a sleepover at the home when a person not associated with the group came up to the house and shot Johnson before leaving the scene.

[This makes it sound like the vic was an assassin!]

There was one adult in the home sleeping during the time of the incident, police said.

Detectives believe the suspect was lured to the home using a phone app. Police say Johnson pulled out a gun and threatened the suspect.
Once Johnson started to search the suspect, the suspect fired shots, according to police.

[“Search”: Johnson didn’t begin to “search the suspect,” he began to rob the victim! Police or security guards search a suspect.]

A motive for the shooting has not been discovered by police, but the other teens in the home were questioned.

[Of course, police discovered a motive for the shooting—self-defense!]

Johnson was one of three people shot and killed on Sunday.

Victoria T. Davis is treating Roshun Davis, as if he were a murder victim.

Davis used the word “suspect” no fewer than six times in a brief story, to describe the victim, and there were three other instances of its use on the same page, for other stories on the same incident.

The three female WRTV6/The Indy Channel operatives are trying to railroad a crime victim. And that they would do that, tells me that the vic is white. They wouldn’t knowingly do that to a black man.

Note that although the white female operative was also bad, she was nowhere near as bad as her black colleagues. She at least showed some white neighbors talking about the criminality that was routine at the house in question, which was clearly supported by the adults (parents?) that lived there. One middle-aged white man said that the teenagers would fire .22s in the backyard, and an elderly white lady said, “Something must go on, to have the police called every day.”

The WRTV6/The Indy Channel operatives had no interest in investigating the background of the dead perp, his connection to the home, his criminal associates, or the people who owned or rented the home.

At my undergraduate alma mater, SUNY Stony Brook, my roommate of choice, best friend, business partner and romantic rival, Larry Schiller, was a vegetarian. (See? I am tolerant! I never harmed him.)

Larry, who was also such a Zionist that he answered the phone saying, “Shalom,” and resented my saying anything in Yiddish, or with a Yiddish accent (like “gesundehait”), thought that being a veg made him morally superior. My response? “Oh, like Hitler.”

(Most people, then and now, anti-Semitic, philo-Semitic, or otherwise, have always considered me a Zionist, due to my support for Israel’s right to survive and thrive. However, my impression was that über-Zionists like Larry considered Yiddish the language of losers. Now, if the Jews of the Warsaw ghetto had invented nukes, he might have felt differently.)

Larry’s dream was to produce tofu food that tasted just like chicken and beef. The problem is that, in order to make tofu that tastes like real food, you had to add toxic amounts of MSG.

My suggestion? Eat real food. That way, you don’t have to be like Hitler, and you drastically reduce your chances of stroking out.

What is this “Roman salute” that Ramzpaul keeps referring to? Oh, the Hitler salute. In German, it is called “der Hitlergruß” (“the Hitler greeting”).

Some readers are bound to have noticed that I rarely write on the so-called Alt-Right.

That’s because it’s not a fruitful use of my time. For what should be obvious reasons, I do not identify with that appellation. Although I have relations that are anywhere from close to cordial to benign to some people who identify themselves as “Alt-Right,” and others who do not, but who are nevertheless very involved in the movement, as a Jew, there is no place for me in that rabidly anti-Semitic movement.

Note, too, that unlike virtually all members of that movement, I read, write, and speak fluent German.

They’ve never invited me to so much as attend, let alone speak at their conferences. Just as well.

I prefer the term coined by my VDARE.com colleague, John Derbyshire: “The Dissident Right.” The foregoing term encompasses various streams of thought and temperaments: Racial realism, white nationalism, neo-reactionaries, etc. Where one would situate white supremacists and neo-Nazis, I do not know.

Categorizing all of the foregoing movements is not reducible to empirical distinctions; the empirical and the normative are inextricably intertwined.

Note, however, that before the term was coined, I was quite influential in what would come to be known as the Alt-Right.

In either late 2005 or early 2006, Kevin Lamb of the National Policy Institute hired me to edit and co-author the report, The State of White America-2007. I wrote an outline for the report, which Kevin found acceptable without qualification.

Soon thereafter, Kevin left NPI, and NPI co-founder Louis R. Andrews took over the project.

Louis R. Andrews, may he rest in peace, was a brilliant man. Although my understanding is that he made his money off of real estate, his passion was the life of the mind. He read deeply of naturalistic social science, much of it of the Darwinist persuasion, which has been known variously as “sociobiology,” “human biodiversity,” and “evolutionary psychology.” He founded and ran Washington Summit Publishers, which has brought out some of the most important works in the social sciences and theoretical biology of the past 15 or so years (Richard Lynn’s Race Differences in Intelligence and The Global Bell Curve; Michael Hart’s Understanding History, etc.).

Kevin Lamb, a leading intellectual, has for many years been the managing editor of the Social Contract, a brilliant journal devoted to immigration. (Kevin is as much at home writing on the politics of immigration as he is on IQ.) Before that, he was a librarian at Newsweek, and then managing editor? at Human Events, until he was purged, as part of a hate campaign led by the SPLC?

Economist Edwin S. Rubenstein wrote one chapter for SOWA-2007, a statistical portrait of America, and historian Robert M. Stove (The Unsleeping Eye) wrote a chapter on the changing world of labor.

I was originally to write the chapter on crime and race. However, being unable to secure a writer for the chapter on race and education, I wrote both chapters, and thus became the principal author of the report. Louis Andrews graciously added the title “program director,” which had been Kevin’s.

Louis did not interfere in the slightest with the report.

The report was held up for months by Louis’ titanic struggle with cancer, which had spread all over his body. The situation looked hopeless, and I, who had not seen one cent from the project, notwithstanding hundreds of hours of labor I’d put into it, was afraid I’d never get paid, and the project would never be published.

Well, things worked out splendidly. Louis went into remission, the report was published, and I got paid.

Louis posted a link to SOWA at NPI’s home page, where readers could order a free e-version of the report, or a hard copy for a modest price ($7? I can’t recall).

Meanwhile, every time Peter Brimelow published one of my articles at VDARE, Louis put up a handsome Web page at NPI, excerpting and linking to it.

SOWA-2007 was one of the two most important works ever commissioned and published by NPI. The other one was by my SOWA-2007/VDARE colleague, Ed Rubinstein: The Cost of Diversity.

I have a hard copy of Ed’s report somewhere here in my writing factory.

Both of NPI’s most important publications were authored solely or principally by Jews. Louis Andrews didn’t do that to triangulate, but because he wanted work by the best people.

The last time I saw Louis was at the conference Preserving Western Civilization in 2009. He was a tall, somewhat paunchy man in his 60s. However, a little extra weight looks good on a man who was recently fighting cancer, and with his ruddy cheeks and energetic appearance, Louis looked fit to wrestle bears.

Buff, 6’2,” 220-lb., convicted felon and parolee King was high out of his mind, and led police on a chase in which he hit speeds of 110-115 mph, in order to avoid going back to prison, and violently resisted arrest, assaulting four white policemen, whom he left no alternative but to brutally but legally beat him with metal batons, until he would submit to arrest.

Instead of being sent back to prison to finish his sentence for armed robbery, plus additional years for his new crimes, King was treated like a crime victim, and a martyr to white racism. Local TV station KTLAdoctored an already abbreviated videotape made of the end of King’s confrontation with police, by cutting out the passage when King charged the police, thus provoking the baton-beating. The MSM referred to King as “black motorist Rodney King,” instead of as “convicted felon Rodney King.” Seemingly every TV station in America showed the doctored video thousands of times, causing a frenzy of hate against the policemen, who were prosecuted in state court. A civil court jury awarded him $5.5 million for his crimes.

[Postscript, November 25, 2016: I too was convinced by hundreds of viewings of the doctored video tape that the four white officers were guilty as hell.]

A white Simi Valley jury saw the undoctored tape, with King assaulting the police, heard testimony, and on April 29, 1992, acquitted the four officers.

Minutes later, the biggest riot in Los Angeles history broke out at the intersection of Florence and Normandie, as blacks burned the city down, causing $1 billion in property damage, 53 deaths, and countless maimings in racially motivated attacks on whites and Asians.

According to the official story, the L.A. riot was an “uprising,” a righteous response to the “injustice” of the four LAPD officers being acquitted. The first entry at Yahoo.com for “Florence and Normandie” opens,

Florence and Normandie is the intersection where the 1992 Los Angeles uprising began–a chaotic response to the police beating of Rodney King. [Florence and Normandie, Metropolitan Images, last accessed October 9, 2015.]

As Lou Cannon showed in his monumental work, Official Negligence: How Rodney King and the Riots Changed Los Angeles and the LAPD, the black rioters at Florence and Normandie were not responding to the jury verdict, about which they were completely unaware. They just decided to terrorize a Korean liquor store owner.

Police at the scene were confident that they could get the situation under control, but their terrified superiors ordered them to flee, which emboldened the ragtag gang of racist blacks to expand their riot. The little riot was shown on TV, which emboldened racist black thugs all over the city. Hispanic criminals then joined in.

The Los Angeles riot was thus a de-policing and media riot. Immediate, muscular policing would have kept black and Hispanic criminals in check.

President George H.W. Bush saw the riots on TV, decided that blacks’ racist, psychopathic rage had to be born out of righteous indignation, and ordered the Justice Department to bring him the heads of the four white officers in a civil rights show trial.

In 1993, federal jurors, convinced that if they did not sacrifice at least some white policemen, the “13th juror” (the street) would erupt again, convicted two policemen, while acquitting two.

That was the template for the continuing false charges against white police across America today.

WICHITA, Kan. (AP) — A Dallas woman accused of killing a Wichita mother and taking her baby was in the country illegally when she was released from a Kansas jail this summer before immigration officials had a chance to request she be held, law enforcement authorities said Wednesday.

N.S.: Even if ICE had sent in an immigration hold, Sedgwick County Sheriff Jeff Easter would have released her, because Easter is a sanctuary sheriff.

Detroit — A Wayne State police officer has died less than 24 hours after he was shot in the head during an off-campus confrontation, university officials confirmed Wednesday.

Collin Rose, 29, is the first WSU officer to die in the line of duty, president M. Roy Wilson said in a statement.

“This is a tragedy felt by all of us — Collin and his family and friends, his fiancée, and our campus and community,” he said. “Please keep Collin and his fiancée and family in your thoughts and prayers. Collin served Wayne State with distinction, and we owe those he left behind our deepest sympathies and our strong support.”

WSU police and at least eight other agencies escorted Rose’s body to the Wayne County Medical Examiner in a procession Wednesday night, Holt said.

CHARLESTON, S.C. -- Michael Slager was a good officer who did what was expected, got good department reviews and seldom prompted complaints, Slager’s old supervisor at the North Charleston Police Department testified during the fired patrolman’s murder trial on Tuesday.

An undated photo shows Walter Scott.
WCSC via Facebook

“He was a very good officer,” testified Sgt. Ronald Webb who was Slager’s immediate supervisor on the day last year when Slager shot and killed an unarmed black motorist fleeing from a traffic stop.

Slager faces 30 years to life if convicted of murder in the April 2015 shooting death of 50-year-old Walter Scott. The shooting of Scott five times in the back was captured on cellphone video by a bystander.

Once the video was made public, Slager, 35, was charged with murder and fired by the department where he had been an officer for five years. The shooting rekindled a national debate about the treatment of black suspects at the hands of white officers.

Webb said that he was Slager’s supervisor for six months before the shooting. At the end of 2014, he testified Slager “got a pretty good appraisal.”

He said the only complaint he could recall getting about Slager was during another traffic stop when a man asked that Slager’s supervisor come to the scene. The motorist, Webb said, was pretty upset about being pulled over.

“I couldn’t calm him down either. He was pretty outraged,” he said, adding that a third officer eventually reported to the scene.
The defense contends that Scott and Slager wrestled on the ground in the seconds before the shooting and Scott got control of Slager’s Taser and stunned the officer.

[That they "wrestled," or that Scott assaulted Slager?]

Earlier Tuesday William Schneck, a trace evidence expert, testified that yellow paint found on Slager’s Taser matched paint from an asphalt path through a vacant lot where Scott was shot.

He also said yellow paint was found on a cellphone that Scott was carrying that also matched paint from the path which has been referred to in the trial as the yellow brick road.

Dr. Thomas Owens, the chief medical examiner in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, testified for the defense that autopsy photos of Scott showed injuries consistent with the signs of a struggle. He said that there were abrasions and bruises on Scott’s hands, wrists, face and head that occurred before the shooting. The jury was shown the photos showing the injuries.

The Slager trial continues as an Ohio prosecutor announced Tuesday he will retry a defendant in a similar shooting involving a white police officer and a black motorist.

Hamilton County Prosecutor Joe Deters says he will again prosecute fired University of Cincinnati officer Ray Tensing on murder and voluntary manslaughter charges after a Nov. 12 mistrial because of a hung jury.

Vice President Johnson, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Chief Justice, President Eisenhower, Vice President Nixon, President Truman, reverend clergy, fellow citizens, we observe today not a victory of party, but a celebration of freedom - symbolizing an end, as well as a beginning - signifying renewal, as well as change. For I have sworn before you and Almighty God the same solemn oath our forebears prescribed nearly a century and three quarters ago.

The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe - the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.

We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans - born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage - and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

This much we pledge - and more.

To those old allies whose cultural and spiritual origins we share, we pledge the loyalty of faithful friends. United, there is little we cannot do in a host of cooperative ventures. Divided, there is little we can do - for we dare not meet a powerful challenge at odds and split asunder.

To those new States whom we welcome to the ranks of the free, we pledge our word that one form of colonial control shall not have passed away merely to be replaced by a far more iron tyranny. We shall not always expect to find them supporting our view. But we shall always hope to find them strongly supporting their own freedom - and to remember that, in the past, those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside.

To those peoples in the huts and villages across the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required - not because the Communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it is right. If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.

To our sister republics south of our border, we offer a special pledge - to convert our good words into good deeds - in a new alliance for progress - to assist free men and free governments in casting off the chains of poverty. But this peaceful revolution of hope cannot become the prey of hostile powers. Let all our neighbors know that we shall join with them to oppose aggression or subversion anywhere in the Americas. And let every other power know that this Hemisphere intends to remain the master of its own house.

To that world assembly of sovereign states, the United Nations, our last best hope in an age where the instruments of war have far outpaced the instruments of peace, we renew our pledge of support - to prevent it from becoming merely a forum for invective - to strengthen its shield of the new and the weak - and to enlarge the area in which its writ may run.

Finally, to those nations who would make themselves our adversary, we offer not a pledge but a request: that both sides begin anew the quest for peace, before the dark powers of destruction unleashed by science engulf all humanity in planned or accidental self-destruction.

We dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed. But neither can two great and powerful groups of nations take comfort from our present course - both sides overburdened by the cost of modern weapons, both rightly alarmed by the steady spread of the deadly atom, yet both racing to alter that uncertain balance of terror that stays the hand of mankind's final war.

So let us begin anew - remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.

Let both sides explore what problems unite us instead of belabouring those problems which divide us.

Let both sides, for the first time, formulate serious and precise proposals for the inspection and control of arms - and bring the absolute power to destroy other nations under the absolute control of all nations.

Let both sides seek to invoke the wonders of science instead of its terrors. Together let us explore the stars, conquer the deserts, eradicate disease, tap the ocean depths, and encourage the arts and commerce.

Let both sides unite to heed in all corners of the earth the command of Isaiah - to "undo the heavy burdens -. and to let the oppressed go free."

And if a beachhead of cooperation may push back the jungle of suspicion, let both sides join in creating a new endeavour, not a new balance of power, but a new world of law, where the strong are just and the weak secure and the peace preserved.

All this will not be finished in the first 100 days. Nor will it be finished in the first 1,000 days, nor in the life of this Administration, nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin.

In your hands, my fellow citizens, more than in mine, will rest the final success or failure of our course. Since this country was founded, each generation of Americans has been summoned to give testimony to its national loyalty. The graves of young Americans who answered the call to service surround the globe.

Now the trumpet summons us again - not as a call to bear arms, though arms we need; not as a call to battle, though embattled we are - but a call to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle, year in and year out, "rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation" - a struggle against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease, and war itself.

Can we forge against these enemies a grand and global alliance, North and South, East and West, that can assure a more fruitful life for all mankind? Will you join in that historic effort?

In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shank from this responsibility - I welcome it. I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any other generation. The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavour will light our country and all who serve it -- and the glow from that fire can truly light the world.

And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country.

My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.

Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own.

A first lady with beauty, style, and grace of which pretenders can only enviously dream

Forty-three years ago yesterday, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, the 35th president of the United States of America, was felled in Dallas by Lee Harvey Oswald, a communist, dishonorably discharged, ex-marine. For most of my life, November 22 was commemorated as one of the darkest days in American history. In recent years, such commemoration seems to have been fading.

President Kennedy was riding that day in a motorcade with his wife, Jackie, Texas Gov. John Connally and the latter's wife, Idanell (1919-2006), and Texan Vice President Lyndon Baines Johnson. Kennedy had come to Texas to shore up a rift among Texas Democrats.

As soon as she saw her husband had been hit with gunfire, Mrs. Kennedy showed herself willing to sacrifice her own life, to save her husband's. She threw herself across her husband, to shield his body from further gunfire with her own, as if she were a secret service agent, rather than America's First Lady. Alas, it was too late.

Gov. Connally also was wounded, and his wife, Idanell Brill "Nellie" Connally (1919-2006), helped save his life by "pull[ing] the Governor onto her lap, and the resulting posture helped close his front chest wound (which was causing air to be sucked directly into his chest around his collapsed right lung)."

Later that day, aboard Air Force One, Vice President Johnson was sworn in as America's 36th President.

On April 11, Oswald had attempted to assassinate rightwing Army Gen. Edwin Walker; one hour after assassinating the President, he murdered Dallas Patrolman J.W. Tippit, before being arrested in a Dallas movie theater. Two days later, Oswald was himself murdered by Jack Ruby, as lawmen sought to transfer Oswald from police headquarters to the Dallas City Jail.

Jack Kennedy has become, like his ersthwile fling, Marilyn Monroe, a Rohrschach Test, onto which people (particularly leftists) project their preoccupations. Thus do conspiracy obsessives project the notion that the President's assassination had issued out of a conspiracy so immense, including at least two assassins, with the identity of the specific participants – the Cosa Nostra, the CIA, Fidel Castro – depending on the imaginings of the obsessive in question.

Likewise has Kennedy's presidency been fetishized by leftwing obsessives and family retainers, who have turned him into a socialist demigod, who supported massive economic redistribution and radical "civil rights."

The best way of summing up the real JFK versus the fantasy version propagated by the Left and Kennedy courtiers since his death, is by comparison and contrast to President Richard M. Nixon, Kennedy's opponent in the 1960 election.

Kennedy has been portrayed as a leftwing saint and Renaissance man, who gave us or supported (or would have, had he lived) the War on Poverty, civil rights for blacks, and utopia. Nixon, by contrast, was a rightwing Mephistopheles ("Tricky Dick"), and a crude, racist, fascist warmonger.

Politically, Kennedy and Nixon actually had much in common. Both were unapologetic anti-communists in matters domestic and foreign. Nixon successfully prosecuted for perjury the traitor and Soviet spy, Alger Hiss (which inspired the Left to work tirelessly thereafter for Nixon's destruction), while Kennedy ("Ich bin ein Berliner.") was an unequivocal supporter of West Berlin against Soviet imperialism, and risked nuclear war, when he faced down the Soviets during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. (Due to the statute of limitations, Nixon could not prosecute Hiss for treason or espionage.) On the negative side of the ledger, Kennedy betrayed the Cuban insurgents who carried out the Bay of Pigs invasion, by withholding promised air support, thus turning the invasion into a fiasco.

Domestically, at least in fiscal matters, Kennedy was considerably to the right of Nixon. Early in Kennedy's administration, he signed off on what was then the biggest tax cut ever, and which set the economy on fire. In light of Kennedy's fiscal conservatism and belief in self-reliance ("Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country"), it is highly unlikely that he would have signed off on a program for massive government welfare programs. The War on Poverty was the idea of Lyndon Johnson, who exploited the nation's mourning for JFK to ram his programs through Congress.

By contrast, Nixon introduced price-and-wage controls, a move that was far to the left economically of the Democratic Party, even after Kennedy. And it was Nixon, the hated "racist," not Kennedy or even Johnson, who institutionalized affirmative action. Note that over 30 percent of blacks voted for Nixon for president, over three times as high a proportion than ever would vote for George W. Bush for president.

For over thirty years, leftist Democrats have sought to tar and feather Nixon as a "racist" for his "Southern Strategy" of appealing to Southern whites with promises of "law and order." The presuppositions of the leftist critics are: 1. If one is not a leftist, one may not campaign for the votes of groups that may potentially vote for one, but rather must hopelessly chase after the votes of people who will never vote for him, thereby guaranteeing his defeat; and 2. Because the explosion in crime was primarily the fault of blacks, no politician may ever campaign on behalf of "law and order" (in other words, see #1).

Since leftists have long controlled the media and academia, no successful counter-movement has ever been waged against the Democrat Northern Strategy that continues to this day inflaming and relying on racist blacks for their votes and their violence.

If anything, Nixon was a stronger supporter of "civil rights" than Kennedy. When Martin Luther King Jr. was arrested during the 1960 presidential campaign, Nixon wanted to call King's parents in support, but let his advisers talk him out of it. Conversely, Kennedy let his adviser, future senator Harris Wofford, talk him into calling "Daddy" King, which resulted in Kennedy winning the black vote.

In August 1963, the Poor People's March, in which Martin Luther King Jr. would give his famous "I Have a Dream" speech, was almost shut down by the Kennedy Administration without King even getting to speak.

The march had been organized by A. Philip Randolph, the legendary socialist founder of the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, the nation's first successful black labor union. Randolph was planning on giving a radical leftwing speech written by Stanley Levison, a communist advisor to both Randolph and King, but as historian David Garrow tells in his biography, Bearing the Cross: Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the President's brother, Attorney General Robert Kennedy, acting in his brother's name, threatened literally to pull the plug on the demonstration, were Randolph to deliver the planned speech. Randolph relented, and gave a considerably toned-down speech.

There is no record, to my knowledge, of Nixon ever censoring a political speech, much less one by a civil rights leader.

As for Southeast Asia, Kennedy got us involved in the War in Vietnam; Nixon got us out.

Kennedy repeatedly jeopardized national security, both as a naval intelligence officer during World War II, and while President, due to his obsessive womanizing. By contrast, even Nixon's sworn enemies have failed to find any evidence of his cheating on his beloved wife, Pat.

And as for the two men's intellectual status, Nixon was clearly superior. The notion that Kennedy was an intellectual the planned product of a PR campaign engineered and financed by the future president's father, Joseph P. Kennedy Sr.. The elder Kennedy got his son's undistinguished, pro-appeasement (echoing the elder Kennedy, who was a Nazi sympathizer) Harvard senior thesis, Why England Slept, published as a book, after having it rewritten by erstwhile family retainer, New York Times columnist Arthur Krock (whom JFK would later stab in the back, using future Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee as his tool of choice); later, the Pulitzer Prize-winning book, Profiles in Courage, was ghostwritten for JFK by another family retainer, Theodore Sorensen, in order to give the young senator the "gravitas" necessary for a run at the White House. Working on behalf of JFK and Joe Kennedy, Arthur Krock campaigned relentlessly on behalf of the fraudulent work, and succeeded in gaining it the 1957 Pulitzer Prize for biography, yet another fraudulent Pulitzer that has never been rescinded.

Nixon, on the other hand, really did write a series of important books on politics. But although Nixon was a true Renaissance man, he was a Republican, and so while the Kennedy hagiography of the press, Hollywood, and academia would slavishly promote the myth of Kennedy as Renaissance man, in the same parties' corresponding demonography of Nixon, the last thing they were going to do was to give Nixon due credit for his very real intellectual accomplishments.

So, where does that leave us? Must we choose between the fictional but pervasive image of JFK as Renaissance man, socialist, and compassionate civil rights supporter, or Garry Wills' revised version, in which Kennedy appears as a ruthless, pathologically lying sociopath?

If we jettison our illusions about the political leaders we support being compassionate, kindly, fatherly (or insert your romanticized cliché of choice) types, and admit that the ruthless, pathologically lying sociopath has been a frequent Oval Office type, that still does not free us from the obligation of weighing the virtues of this sociopath against that one.

While it is ludicrous to speak of a man who inhabited the office for only two years and ten months as a "great president," John F. Kennedy had his moments. He gave us a tax cut of historic dimensions, stood up to the Soviets, founded the Peace Corps, and started the race to the moon that culminated in 1969, with Neil Armstrong's world historical walk.

I don’t care if the people at the Times are a bunch of racial socialists. If I had an in there, unless the salmon and beef were overcooked, I’d load up on them. Politics ends at the buffet table’s edge.

But why is no one eating? Still grieving for JFK? Still grieving for Hillary?

Remember in James Bond classic, Goldfinger, how the titular character, played by Gert Froebe, invite all the mafia bosses in America to come to his compound. He has them all come to a huge conference room, locks them in, and gasses them to death.

President-Elect Donald Trump may have considered such a solution, but instead settled for inviting media bigs to a conference room, and yelling at them, and insulting them, the way they’ve been insulting him for the past 17 months.

“Trump started with Jeff Zucker and said I hate your network, everyone at CNN is a liar and you should be ashamed….

“The meeting was a total disaster. The TV execs and anchors went in there thinking they would be discussing the access they would get to the Trump administration, but instead they got a Trump-style dressing down,” the source added.

A second source confirmed the encounter.

“The meeting took place in a big board room and there were about 30 or 40 people, including the big news anchors from all the networks…,” the source said.

“Trump kept saying, ‘We’re in a room of liars, the deceitful dishonest media who got it all wrong. He addressed everyone in the room calling the media dishonest, deceitful liars. He called out Jeff Zucker by name and said everyone at CNN was a liar, and CNN was network of liars.

“Trump didn’t say Katy Tur by name, but talked about an NBC female correspondent who got it wrong, then he referred to a horrible network correspondent who cried when Hillary lost who hosted a debate – which was Martha Raddatz who was also in the room.

“Gayle did not stand up, but asked some question, ‘How do you propose we the media work with you?’ Chuck Todd asked some pretty pointed questions. David Muir asked how are you going to cope living in DC while your family is in NYC? It was a horrible meeting”

Wolf Blitzer

The meeting was off the record, meaning the participants agreed not to talk about the substance of the conversations.

And the parallel is stronger still: Today’s Democrats seek to drive Trump from office, if necessary by inciting his assassination.

(Bench had been up for the proverbial “cup of coffee” the previous September, but had hit only .163, and was still officially a rookie.)

It is no longer widely known that a man named Samuel Byck sought to assassinate President Nixon, and while he never got close to the President, Byck murdered two men and gravely wounded a third, in the attempt.

I asked the poster if the photo was is, and if he had put the note on his own car. No response yet. The only response I expect, is for him to block me, which would cause the twit to disappear. Therefore, I have photocopied it, as well.

Postscript: 5:50 a.m., Sunday, November 20, 2016

On second thought, since the poster is clearly not a lefty, and the hate hoax he posted is so ridiculous, I suspect that he was doing a parody.

The teacher will, no doubt assert that she didn’t direct the students to do that, that it was their idea, and hide behind her and their First Amendment rights.

The teacher was responsible. She almost certainly incited the act, school kids have limited First Amendment rights, and there is no First Amendment to incite the assassination of the President-Elect of the United
States of America.

She must be fired, and as the speaker in the Fox video commentary below argues, the kids who acted out the “assassination” must be expelled.

Adam Yauch Park was defaced with two swastikas and a slogan saying "Go Trump!" on Friday.
(Daniel Zuchnik/Getty Images)

BY Ben Kochman
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Friday, November 18, 2016, 6:43 P.M.

A Brooklyn park was defaced with two swastikas on Friday — along with the words, “Go Trump!”

City Councilman Brad Lander tweeted a picture of the hateful symbol spray-painted on playground equipment at Adam Yauch Park in Brooklyn Heights.

“Yet more hatred & anti-Semitism from Trump supporters,” the local pol tweeted, adding the hashtag #neverisnow.

Lander said the NYPD Hate Crimes task force and Parks Department were on the scene of the Columbia St. park — named after the departed Yauch, a member of the Beastie Boys — and that the swastikas would be painted over Friday night.

B train vandalized with swastika

The hate crime comes days after a prominent member of the borough’s Orthodox Jewish community reported a swastika spray-painted in Crown Heights. A straphanger also found the infamous Nazi symbol on a B train coming from Brooklyn on Thursday.

I got a message from amazon.com yesterday that a new comment had been posted to a review of a book on education. The comment follows.

Amazon Customer says:

the reason whites don't make it to advanced levels was revealed when Dr. Duke talked about how jews are 2% of the population, but make up 25% of the students at Harvard. I knew a white man with an IQ of 145+ and he was told by the people who ran the college, "The only thing you are good for is mopping floors, cleaning toilets and flipping burgers."

I responded:

“Dr. Duke”? And who might that be? David Duke, the white supremacist, genocidal anti-Semite with a mail-order Ph.D.? Calling him “Dr.” is supposed to make him sound credible, I suppose, when you attribute nonsense to him, the way some people always say, “As Dr. King said”? And why didn’t you write “dr. duke,” the way you wrote “jews”?

You, in your glorious anonymity, knew a nameless white man, who was told by nameless people running a nameless college in a nameless city…

Remorseless war criminal Brittany Norwood; her family asked for a life sentence with the chance of parole. If anyone ever deserved the needle, it was her, but instead she got life “without” (read: until) parole.

By David in TN

Last night on the ID Channel (Investigative Discovery) there was an episode of 20/20 on ID Presents: Homicide. It was about "The Yoga Store Murder." It will be repeated on the ID Channel early Sunday morning, November 20, at 5 a.m. ET. You can set your DVR for it.

The show isn't bad. The racial aspect is mentioned in a roundabout way.

When the detectives realized Norwood was faking her injuries and had killed Jayna Murray, they were cautious and "took it slow." Brittaney Norwood, you see, was "a typical upper-middle-class black kid," and accusing her of falsely claiming rape and then murdering a white woman could mean "hell to pay."

It's acknowledged that "petty theft followed Norwood where she went."

The lead detective, a light-skinned black man, said of the brutal murder: "I can't fathom it. A woman doing this to another woman. It makes no sense. Zilch."

Maybe the proprietor of NSU/WEJB could enlighten him.

Friday, November 18, 2016 at 7:46:00 P.M. EST

Apple employee Jana Svrzo told two managers what she'd heard, but they refused to do anything

About Me

I am a dissident journalist, whose work has been published in dozens of daily newspapers, magazines, and journals in English, German, and Swedish, under my own name and many pseudonyms. While living in internal exile in New York, where I am whitelisted, I maintain NSU/The Wyatt Earp Journalism Bureau and some eight other blogs (some are distinctive but occasional venues, while others are mirrors), and also write for stout-hearted men such as Peter Brimelow and Jared Taylor. Please hit the “Donate” button on your way out. Thanks, in advance.
Follow my tweets at @NicholasStix.

$ $ $

The response so far to WEJB/NSU’s ongoing fundraiser has been very heartening, but we need tens of thousands of dollars more, in order to tide us over for 2012! If you have given, I thank you. If not, please consider making a donation.